The Assault Weapon Debate

I love the debate about whether we should ban assault rifles. Not because I own one. I really have no interest in having one. And I'm really not that perturbed at the thought of not ever being able to have one. I do want to protect my right to get one should I change my mind. But frankly if they did ban their sale in the future, I wouldn't get that worked up. I'm really not a gun guy. So, why would I love the debate?

Because it's perfect for exposing the dishonest manner in which liberals debate.

I've said for years that what gun control proponents should do is forget all this stuff about restricting gun sales, or registering guns, or taxing bullets. Those things are a distraction at best. But the assault weapon ban epitomizes their strategy and their dilemma. I would tell them that if they were honest with everybody, including themselves, they would see that what they really want is to repeal the second amendment. They don't believe in it. They think it's wrong, and they simply don't believe the populace should be armed. But you will only get that admission out of the most politically naive amongst them. Because the ones that clearly see it's a non-starter with a majority of Americans, simply shift gears and concentrate on getting that camel's nose under the tent. And the assault rifle ban is the perfect nose.

So when the shootings happened at Sandy Hook School in Newtown, they saw their opening. It was perfect for them. An assault rifle with an extended magazine (that did not jam, as most do) was used to kill 26 innocents. It was perfectly horrible. And you know the motto of the guys at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, "Never let a crisis go to waste."

They came out swinging. "You don't need a 30 round clip to hunt deer." "These weapons are only good for killing humans." "We are not trying to ban guns. This is just common sense gun control." "We respect that the second amendment is an individual right." But they're lying, particularly that last one.

And the proof of that is right there in their arguments. If they were not trying to ban all guns eventually, doing so for just assault rifles makes no sense. They represent a tiny, tiny fraction of gun deaths. In Chicago, that bastion of strong gun control laws, they had over 500 gun deaths in 2012. That was far more than any other American city including those that are bigger than Chicago (NY & LA.) I can't say for sure, because they don't give enough detail, but it looks like of the 500, less than 3 percent involved "long guns," which includes the far more popular shot gun. So if we give them the benefit of the doubt, something like 7 or less might have been committed with a rifle. How many of those do you think involved an assault rifle? Half? So we're down to 3. And had extended magazines? Probably none.

So why go after them? Why would they exhaust what little political capital they have on this issue, on something so ineffective and inconsequential? They know this is going to be a fight, but they just want to "do something." They want action.

So try to imagine taking them at their word. Okay, you say, let's go ahead and ban these assault rifles. And while we're at it, we are going to outlaw the big clips too. Are you happy now? Are you going to just accept this small step? Didn't you say that's all you wanted? So we fast forward a year, and it turns out that we had another 500 dead in Chicago. Oh, and instead of a guy with an assault rifle shooting 3rd graders, we have a guy with two semi-automatic pistols (carrying only 7 rounds each) walk into a grade school and kill 30 kids by simply changing clips and alternating guns.

Do you think it will matter to them when you remind them that they said the rifle ban was all they wanted? Do you really believe they will say "Well a deals a deal, I said I wouldn't go after all the guns and I WON'T." Really?